Caste–crimes: A reality check
By Geetha Vani S., Deepthi Sukumar; CVMC – Citizens Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (CVMC)
Draconian. Harsh. Stringent. These are the words used to describe the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (POA) in polite society. Even judges of the Supreme Court of India fall prey to this fallacy. The data published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its annual Crime in India (CII) reports and the annual reports (AR) of the union and state governments under this Act tell a different story – a story of choreographed performances, impotent state mechanisms, and a system precision engineered to fail the victim and protect the perpetrator.
The fact that the recorded atrocities continue to increase, increase several times more than the increase in population, and the proportion of heinous crimes keeps increasing, underscores the fact that the primary intent of the Act – to prevent atrocities – has failed. In 2021, the total recorded atrocities against the scheduled castes crossed 10 lakhs (one million), and 2022 (the last year for which data is available) saw recorded atrocities against the scheduled tribes cross the five–digit mark. The year 2022 also marks the fourth consecutive year in which over 1,000 atrocities of murder and the second consecutive year in which over 5,000 atrocities of rape have been recorded. Recorded atrocities increased even during the pandemic year.
This is despite the standards of proof, and the officials involved in investigation and trial, being higher than for other crimes. While any witness can file a complaint (Rule 5), subsequently everything is done by a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) or an officer of higher rank, and even the victim is only an observer. First there is an inquiry by a DSP or a subdivisional magistrate (SDM, Rule 6). If they confirm that an atrocity has taken place, then both the superintendent of police (SP) and the district magistrate (DM) do a spot inspection (Rule 12(1)) and ensure an FIR is registered with the right sections. Then a special DSP is tasked with the investigation (Rule 12(3)). The investigation by the DSP is supervised by the SP, regularly monitored by the DM. At every stage written reports are sent to the special court for periodic review. At the end of this intensely scrutinised investigation, the charge–sheet is filed if the case is found to be true and the investigating officer is confident of proving it beyond reasonable doubt in court. In all other cases, a case final report is filed. If the judge of the special court is convinced that there is a case, and there have been no procedural lapses, then a case is taken up for trial.
The choreographed engineering to fail starts right at inception. Most states do not meet the minimum standards of compliance on any statutory requirement. Even granting that subordinates do not follow orders or statutory requirements, the annual reports reveal that only 37 of 146 (25%) chief ministers have ever conducted a mandatory state level high power vigilance and monitoring committee (SVMC) meetings – a function solely under their control and supposed to be conducted every January and July. In 2021 only 9 of 72 SVMC meetings were conducted – a compliance rate of 12%. From 1995 (when the rules came into force) to 2021, the compliance rate of SVMC meetings is 6.5%. Since 1995 ‘club zero’ i.e., those who had never conducted a single meeting include 10 of 28 (36%) states, 109 of 146 (75%) chief ministers, and 25 of 35 (71%) governing political parties. The compliance is a bit better for the district vigilance and monitoring committees (DVMC) but much worse (under 3%) for the subdivisional vigilance and monitoring committees (SdVMC) that the subdivisional magistrates are supposed to conduct.
Post the 2015 amendments, only Uttarakhand (2016), Tamil Nadu (2017) and Bihar (2020) have notified the mandatory contingency plans (Rule 15). Karnataka and Rajasthan (2024) notified the contingency plans after litigation. Andhra has a ‘model contingency plan’. None of the other states have notified updated contingency plans – including 7 of the 12 states that account for about 95% of the recorded atrocities.
Few states conduct the mandatory survey to identify atrocity prone areas. Of the states that have identified areas (most of them without conducting a survey!), only Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar have special police stations (mandated under Rule 13 to have significant number of constables from the scheduled communities) – meaning that the other states that have identified areas are non–compliant in this aspect. Most states that have identified areas do not have sufficient exclusive special courts (Section 14) in these identified areas to dispose the cases two months after the chargesheet is filed, nor do they have exclusive special public prosecutors for the exclusive special courts (Section 15).
These have cascading consequences. Uttar Pradesh, that records the largest number of atrocities, does not have even one identified area, or even one special police station, and has conducted just one SVMC meeting in 30 years, has a conviction rate of 76% – more than double the national 34%. Tamil Nadu declares all its 38 districts atrocity prone and all district collectors as special officers, yet has only 17 exclusive special courts – and seven of them disposed less than 10 cases per annum, with the exclusive special court at Perambalur disposing none. Judges of ‘exclusive special courts’ are judges of the exclusive POCSO courts and/or the Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) for rapes. The union report u/s 21(4) for the calendar year 2022 reveals that on 31 December 2021there were 35,754 pending cases of atrocities to which 7,862 were added during 2022 making for a total of 43,616. But in the whole of 2022, only 2,814 cases were disposed (23 abated, 872 convicted, 1919 acquitted/discharged) and on 31 December 2022, there were 40,802 – up 14% from the previous year, and 35% less than the number of atrocities charge–sheeted during the year. At the contemporary rate of disposal, it would take 14.5 years just to clear the 2022 backlog. There is incontrovertible evidence that there are some cases pending from 1922 – 33 years. This is a clear case of administrative and judicial negligence, since the law (s14) is clear that the state government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, establish exclusive special courts to ensure speedy trials within two months.
These delays have real world consequences, since 25% of the relief (and often socioeconomic rehabilitation as well) is tied to the progress of the case (end of trial or conviction). Even a conservative estimate of the relief due in the 40,802 cases reveals that relief of over ₹100 crores, at the very least, is pending for the victims due to the impotence of the courts.
The scandal of the Dr Ambedkar Foundation (DAF) Immediate Monetary Relief
An early review of implementation found that states were not providing relief to the victims of atrocities ostensibly because they did not have sufficient funds. (Relief is paid equally by the union and state governments, so in effect the states were saying that they did not have sufficient resources to put up their half). To bridge this gap the Dr Ambedkar National Relief for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Victims of Atrocities Scheme (DANVAS) was initiated to provide instant monetary relief directly from the union government to victims of murder (₹500,000 for the murder of earning members, ₹200,000 for others), rape (₹200,000), arson (₹300,000), and permanent disability (₹300,000 for earning members, ₹150,000 for others).
The district magistrate had to apply to DAF with the supporting documentation – the FIR and the autopsy report/medical certificate. The scheme was administered by DAF, wholly owned by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJ&E) up to 31 March 2023. DANVAS is provided under Rule 15(1)(a) and is in addition to the relief provided under rule 12(4), as mentioned in Rule 12(5). DAF was empowered to provide this relief suo moto.
According to Crime In India, from 2017 to 2022, there are 44,377 recorded cases of murder, rape, and arson under this Act. There are no figures for permanent disability and therefore this figure of 44,377 DANVAS eligible victims and survivors is most certainly an underestimate. The NCRB data multiplied by the eligibility criteria above gives the amount due. According to figures provided in the annual reports of the ministry, the foundation, and in parliament, less than 2% of the eligible victims of these most heinous of atrocities have been provided instant monetary relief – meaning 44,000 victims of murder, rape, and arson have been denied ₹1,140 crores as immediate monetary relief, as a conservative estimate. Not one official has been held accountable for this criminal negligence.
Socio-economic rehabilitation (Rule 12(4) Schedule) for murder, rape, dacoity, and permanent disability is provisions for three months, and within three months a pension (₹ 5,000+DA), a government job, a house, agricultural land, and free residential education for children up to graduation (all these have to be given, not cherry picking either or). About 40,000 households are eligible for these since 2016. Incredibly, the government has no data on this.
Then there is the minor matter of recording. Instead of the inverse corelation between the seriousness of the crime and its recording, inter–community rape is the most recorded crime against women and girls from the scheduled communities – in 10 states for the scheduled castes and in 14 states and one union territory for the scheduled tribes. There are virtually no recorded cases of inter–community attempt to commit rape or insult to the modesty of women. Even during the pandemic year, the recorded rapes of scheduled tribe women (specifically girls) increased, while all other crimes decreased). The recorded crime reveals a pattern of systematic suppression and trivialisation.
Despite senior officials being continuously involved at every stage, the conviction rate – 34% for atrocities against the scheduled castes and 28% for atrocities against the scheduled tribes – is barely above the national average for similar crimes when the POA is not invoked. Nationwide, there has not been even one conviction for inter–community attempt to commit rape of scheduled tribe women or girls since 2019. The choreographed charade is evident in the number of appeals filed – just 3% of the acquittals – 161 of 5,027 acquittals in 2020 – 263 of 8,003 acquittals in 2021. This is despite the investigation being done by the DSP or higher, prosecution by an exclusive special public prosecutor or special public prosecutor with over seven years’ experience, monitoring by the district magistrate, superintendent of police, additional director general of police, and the director of prosecutions, periodic review by special court from information to judgement, monthly review by district magistrate, quarterly review by subdivisional and district vigilance and monitoring committees, and the state nodal officer, the January, July reviews by the chief minister, review by inter–departmental committee chaired by the Ministers of MoSJ&E and MoTA for effective coordination, and reviewed by the NCSC and NCST – yet judges of the supreme court of India such as Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit (who went on to become the chief justice of India) accuse the scheduled communities of using this law to terrorise innocent citizens.
As it stands, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is lipstick on the pig of casteist society. The institutional capture by casteist forces is total, and the constitutional values are being strangled. The studied ignorance and wilful impotence of the state and state mechanisms ensure that there is a long way to go before we can awake into that heaven of freedom that Rabindranath Tagore eulogised.
The above article is extracted from the report: `Citizen’s Audit of the Union Report u/s 21(4) of the SC/ST (POA) Act’ for the year 2021, published in 2023.
The full report can be accessed on the CVMC website here. CVMC can be contacted via email: contact@CVMC.in